Linux-Advocacy Digest #389, Volume #25 Fri, 25 Feb 00 11:13:07 EST
Contents:
Re: Running Gnome and KDE in 24-bit Color? ("ne...")
Re: Binary compatibility: what kind of crack are they smoking? (Kari Pahula)
Re: C2 Conformance not considered a big deal (Christopher Browne)
Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K (Christopher Browne)
Re: How does the free-OS business model work? ("Jeffrey B. Siegal")
Re: Running Gnome and KDE in 24-bit Color? (Steven Smolinski)
Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Bundling inherently unfair to consumers - R people in here stupid?? ("Erik
Funkenbusch")
I want control of my fu&king computer !!! (Ivehadit!!!)
Re: How does the free-OS business model work? (Mitch Blevins)
Re: UCITA: Is it really as bad as it sounds?... (was Re: More PC user right
restriction is coming...) (Ian Westcott)
Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K ("Drestin Black")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "ne..." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Running Gnome and KDE in 24-bit Color?
Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2000 14:16:46 GMT
On Feb 24, 2000 at 20:44, Jon A. Bell eloquently wrote:
>Hello Linux gurus,
>
>I'm a newcomer to Linux, and I recently installed Red Hat Linux 6.1 on my
>second computer (a dual PIII-650), running an old(ish) Diamond FireGL 1000
>card. When I did the setup, I picked 1024 x 768 resolution, and got both
>Gnome and KDE to run fine. However, they're both running in 8-bit color. How
>can I switch the screen display to 24-bit color? My card and monitor will
>handle 1024 x 768, 24-bit resolution without a problem. I've searched around
>the GUI for a way to do this, but haven't located the right info, so any
>help would be appreciated. Thanks!
startx -- -bpp 24 from the command line.
Please post further questions like these to either
comp.os.linux.setup or comp.os.linux.x . They are
more appropiate for questions
--
Registered Linux User # 125653
BOFH excuse #403:
Sysadmin didn't hear pager go off due to loud music from bar-room speakers.
9:14am up 20 days, 21:52, 8 users, load average: 0.22, 0.15, 0.10
------------------------------
From: Kari Pahula <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development.system,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: Binary compatibility: what kind of crack are they smoking?
Date: 25 Feb 2000 14:18:02 GMT
In comp.os.linux.development.system Mario Klebsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi) writes:
>>Binary only software should ship with all the required shared libraries.
>The key word here is SHOULD. Linux should include an ABI, but it does
>not. Binaries should be shipped with all required libraries, but they
>are not. :-(
No, Linux should _not_ have an ABI, neither any other OS. ABIs are
Evil, they lead to tons of legacy cruft, which can be avoided with
a simple recompilation from sources. It's much easier to make stable
APIs.
It is then distribution makers' responsibility to compile newest
versions compatible with distribution-specific libraries, if they
choose to do so. Either way, the user is always able to compile the
programs herself.
IMHO the requirement for an ABI is an inherent vulnerability of
proprietary software and I'm glad I can do without it!
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christopher Browne)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: C2 Conformance not considered a big deal
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2000 14:16:55 GMT
Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when Drestin Black would say:
>"Christopher Browne" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when Drestin Black would say:
>> >"Christopher Browne" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when Drestin Black would say:
>> >> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> >> I'll answer for you: Microsoft paid them.
>> >> >
>> >> >You cannot possibly be more uninformed and mistaken.
>> >>
>> >> More uninformed and mistaken than whom? Chad Myers? I could go with
>> >> that.
>> >>
>> >> The TPEP certification process is paid for by the vendor; that's part
>> >> of the FAQ at the NSA.
>> >>
>> >> Interesting reading; you could perhaps discover just who is the *most*
>> >> mistaken and uninformed of them all...
>> >
>> >see my previous reply for a clarification. My reply does not include what
>I
>> >replied to: someone was implying MS paid for the certification as in
>bought
>> >it - ie, undeservedly.
>>
>> I don't think there is any "misunderstanding" here; both you and "Chad
>> Myers" have made clear statements that the DoD paid for the
>> certification process. And are shown to be incorrect.
>>
>> Microsoft pays for the certification process. Period.
>
>MS pays for the costs of the certification process - but they have NO
>influence over it's outcome in any way. They are submitting a system and are
>given a bill at the end as well as a result. They can't pay more or less.
>They aren't there during testing and it doesn't take place near anything MS.
I'm not that sanguine about the lack of influence.
The process is intended to discourage there being such influence, but
whether it can utterly prevent it to the point of it being reasonable
to capitalize the "no" in "NO influence" is another question.
>The implication that I was replying to was that paying for it = buying it.
That's an implication that *YOU* read into the issue. Nobody called it
an "Amway scam" or any such thing.
>You can't buy a C2 level evaluation - you can only pay for the testing to
>take place. That's to keep low life free-os never-pay-for-anything types
>from getting a free ride at the cost of the taxpayers.
That conclusion is utter nonsense. The certification process was
constructed before Linux even existed, and certainly did not contemplate
*anything* about "free software."
You can feel free to believe that "keeping low life free OSes" out of
the process was the *express* purpose of the DoD designers; whatever
floats your boat. Of course, when you believe nonsense, that can have
bad side-effects...
--
And me, with this terrible pain in all the diodes down my left side...
[EMAIL PROTECTED] - - <http://www.hex.net/~cbbrowne/lsf.html>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christopher Browne)
Subject: Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2000 14:28:03 GMT
Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when Paul 'Z' Ewande© would say:
>Mig Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit dans le message :
>894d68$3d7$[EMAIL PROTECTED]
><SNIP> Some stuff </SNIP>
>
>> Poor sods.... That Pacheco guy does not seem to have any experience with
>> Unices and neither have you.
>> I have used Ultrix (Digital Unix), Minix, Sinix, Aix, Solaris, FreeBSD and
>> Linux... of these Linux is by far the superior version of Unix... Off
>
>Whoa ! On what grounds do you flatly state that Linux is superior to FreeBSD
>and Solaris ? An inquiring mind needs to know. :)
It commonly comes with a "richer" environment of tools attached to it, and
every new release of a major distribution adds somewhat to that "richness."
This was part of the "shock" when I first hit UNIX in the commercial world;
I had gotten used to "UNIX" meaning:
Ultrix + MFCF tools [U. of Waterloo Math Faculty Computing Facility]
and the paucity of "cool tools" in Commercial UNIX was rather annoying.
FreeBSD and Solaris certainly have other merits, and note that my example
has to do with a UNIX that is no longer in common use, and which is
essentially a family predecessor to FreeBSD, so it's certainly not a
"blindly-Linvocating" position...
--
"Few people are capable of expressing with equanimity opinions which
differ from the prejudices of their social environment. Most people
are even incapable of forming such opinions." (Albert Einstein)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] - - <http://www.hex.net/~cbbrowne/lsf.html>
------------------------------
From: "Jeffrey B. Siegal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: How does the free-OS business model work?
Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2000 06:28:26 -0800
Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
> >First, consumers *do* buy vaporware.
>
> Some consumers do. Most consumers do not.
I'm not so sure this is true. As I said, vaporware exists because it works.
The same can be said for advertising. Many consumers are willing to buy a lot
of products, sight unseen, because of some sort of advertisement or other
inducement. If consumers are willing to make a purchase decision based on an
advertisement, it really doesn't matter whether the product they're buying
exists yet or not; they certainly haven't tried it yet in either case.
> >Second, there are classes of products where consumers do not "try before they
> >buy."
>
> Yes they do. Shareware is based on this very idea.
I said nothing about shareware. I said "most packaged software." My
perception is that "packaged software" does not include shareware. Packaged
software is software you buy in a package, in a store. Without opening the
package. Once you open it, you generally own it, whether you like it or not.
> I think the freeloaders would still make a lot of money.
Sigh. Freeloaders can't "make a lot of money" by freeloading without the
presumption that they were obligated to pay a lot of money in the first place,
thereby making a lot of money by not paying. Only because you assume that
axiom to be true does your conclusion follow.
Of course, the existence of freeloaders and other exploiters is not fatal to
any system, as long as there is a mechanism for keeping such things under a
certain amount of control. You don't think there are freeloaders and
exploiters in the current system. So-called software pirates of the
proprietary software model are freeloaders. Go to Hong Kong and tell me about
freeloaders under a free software as compared to a proprietary software
model. The system does not collapse simply because they exist.
The mechanism I proposed could potentially limit the effect of freeloaders.
Perhaps in some ways better than the current system.
There are other mechanisms for doing so. For example, if developers consider
the input of paying users in designing their software, it is likely that over
time that some classes of freeloaders will find that the software being
developed doesn't meet their needs after all.
> But I don't see why
> developers should be forced to give up the fruits of their labor. Noone
> else is expected to freely give away their productive labor on the grounds
> that it's a "public good".
Excuse me but no one is forced to give up anything. Developers are not forced
to develop software, nor are they forced to distribute it once they do. Free
software simply says that developers don't have the right to prevent others
from distributing it as well, once they receive it.
If a developer wants to develop software and keep it for his own use, he is
free to do so under under free software. He not expected to freely give away
his productive labor.
> Of course, there's an argument that you could have free software funded through
> a grants scheme on the grounds that free software is really in the public
> interest. However, in a capitalist or "soft capitalist" economy, this should
> not be seen as a substitute or replacement for free enterprise, rather it
> is something that should coexist.
"Free enterprise" is not the same as copyright. Copyright is a barrier to
free enterprise. Under a free enterprise system, enterprises are free to do
what they wish, which would include reselling software.
Under a pure capitalist free enterprise system, all software is free software.
> But Linus is not developing end user application software. Where is the
> economic incentive to develop such software under your model ?
Go read ESR, would you? It is boring to rehash these things here.
> Why insist that your model be practiced to the exclusion of other models ?
I don't, but if others do, a reasonable answer to your question might be
"because it is better."
> To put it bluntly, if your model is so darned good, should it not
> be able to replace the traditional model without dismanteling the traditional
> mdel entirely ?
Let's wait and see, shall we.
> How do you think your model would work for the
> game market ? Are gamers supposed to wait around for some fortune 500 company
> to buy a game for them ?
Have you ever heard of product placement? Sponsorships? We have free TV and
radio, and in fact those are the dominant entertainment media of the past
quarter century. What's the big deal here?
> Let me rephrase that as "we don't have much evidence on the record that this
> works well for end user application software".
>
> In the absence of such evidence, this model is just an idea, and until it
> becomes more than just an idea, it's not an adequate replacement for
> the traditional model.
Hmm. Looking at the subject of this thread, it seems that it must have
started talking about operating systems. Now we're talking about end user
applications. Does this mean you have conceded the point vis-a-vis operating
systems?
Or is Linux not strong enough evidence for you?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Steven Smolinski)
Subject: Re: Running Gnome and KDE in 24-bit Color?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2000 14:45:57 GMT
Jon A. Bell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Hello Linux gurus,
This is an advocacy group. It's about flames, mostly. Gurus elsewhere.
>I'm a newcomer to Linux, and I recently installed Red Hat Linux 6.1 on my
>second computer (a dual PIII-650), running an old(ish) Diamond FireGL 1000
>card. When I did the setup, I picked 1024 x 768 resolution, and got both
>Gnome and KDE to run fine. However, they're both running in 8-bit color. How
>can I switch the screen display to 24-bit color? My card and monitor will
>handle 1024 x 768, 24-bit resolution without a problem. I've searched around
>the GUI for a way to do this, but haven't located the right info, so any
>help would be appreciated. Thanks!
If you like to hack around a bit, look at the XF86Config file (usually
/etc/XF86Config or /etc/X11/XF86Config) and grep for the line
"DefaultColorDepth". You can set th(is|ese) to 16 or 24 instead of 8
and restart X to check your work.
Also look at the Depth entry below that to see that it is at the
proper resolution. Always back up this file, though, in case you blow
something up.
Good luck, and remember, real men configure with vi. :)
Steve
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K
Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2000 08:50:30 -0600
No Name <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:895pjv$44r$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> MS has to explain how they dare to suggest that many people out there
> using UNIX or UNIX like OSes should switch to NT (or now W2K) when they
> themselves have delayed such a move for far too long. Unless of course
> they don't care to gain business away from current UNIX users.
What you fail to realize is that Hotmail doesn't run on stock Unix either.
It's highly customized Unix. No existing OS could run Hotmail out of the
box.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Bundling inherently unfair to consumers - R people in here stupid??
Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2000 08:53:13 -0600
Jaro Larnos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Leverege *DOES* mean something. It means (in this sense) to use the
success
> > of your existing product to help sell your new product. Believe it or
not,
> > engineers have to know sells in order to build something people will
buy.
>
> So Leverage is an undecent word to use in engineering types
> of backgrounds. You know engineer doesn't have to know
> what sells, but what's useful in order to make something
> people would _really_ need. Not anything that's just hype
> and would go away just as fast it came to be in the first place.
Companies that do not build what their customers want are not companies for
very long.
Microsoft wins because they build what the majority of their customers want,
not what their competition finds useful.
How many of MS's competitors have bit the dust because of lakc of customers?
Any engineer that doesn't listen to customer feedback isn't an engineer
worth much.
------------------------------
From: Ivehadit!!! <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: I want control of my fu&king computer !!!
Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2000 10:06:51 -0500
Okay, we all know windows sucks!!!!
But I still have to use it for some stuff...
Right now I'm surfing the net and I have several Netscapes running.
What this shit program keeps doing is, if I'm in one netscape and I
click on something, instead of waiting I'll go to another netscape and
start reading something there, but then the other page will "pop"
up...
I don't want this to happen, version 3.04 didn't do this, if I can't
fix this...well I guess I'm through with Netcrap...
Also, I've just about had it with Windows, I've never seen a more
piece of shit software, EVER !!! and I'm using Win98SE,
how this company got away will selling this crap to the public is the
next "Who wants to be a millionaire?" question ...
x86 platform got a bad rap, thanks to bad software...
Microshit SUCKS,
Please post your reply here on usenet,
Thanks
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mitch Blevins)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: How does the free-OS business model work?
Date: 25 Feb 2000 15:43:48 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Jeffrey B. Siegal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Free enterprise" is not the same as copyright. Copyright is a barrier to
> free enterprise. Under a free enterprise system, enterprises are free to do
> what they wish, which would include reselling software.
>
> Under a pure capitalist free enterprise system, all software is free software.
I would argue that this is not true.
Under a pure capitalist free enterprise system, there would be no
copyright laws to restrict the distribution of software copies.
But, you would also see a lot of software released with technical
solutions designed to prevent the use of software unless payment is
made to the developer. Binary-only software that requires a dongle
or a ping to the developers licensing computer would be much more
prevalent. This is not what I think of when I hear "free software".
------------------------------
From: Ian Westcott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Subject: Re: UCITA: Is it really as bad as it sounds?... (was Re: More PC user right
restriction is coming...)
Date: 19 Feb 2000 03:34:14 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Xcott Craver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: WickedDyno <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:>In article <Y5Kq4.324$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Ted"
:><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:>
:>>You cannot
:>>> review or comment on the product without permission (in violation of
:>>> the first ammendment);
:>>
:>>Base on this, could this law be struck down by the high courts?
:>
:>Oh, it probably will be. I hope. If it passes.
: It's a state law, tho. It'll have to be taken off a number
: of books, I think.
A state law cannot revoke rights granted by federal law, however (in
general). Comes from one of the constitutional amendments ratified
shortly after the Civil War...
--
Ian Westcott Rakarra@IRC
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K
Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2000 11:07:29 -0500
"No Name" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:895qt8$4hr$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Thu, 24 Feb 2000 18:17:24 -0500, Drestin Black said:
> >
> >"Mig Mig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:8940np$5pc$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> Whats Linux got to do with it?
> >>
> >> They have had several years to do this and have been incapable of doing
> >it.
> >> If they want to have companies to use W2K, then they must show that
their
> >> own high volume sites can run on NT/W2K.
> >
> >Um, - they exactly do do that. Some of the highest volume sites in the
> >world,
>
> Did you say some? Yes, I thought so.
I should have written most but I would not write all. Of course.
>
> > the most mission critical business e-dollars ride on NT/IIS.
>
> Like where? I'll just give you an example: most banks don't even think
> about windows for their important operations. Ready.
Oh really? Think again. MOST banks use windows in their branches almost
exclusively. Do you consider Prudential a small "banking" operation? 60,000
copies of W2K pro going on-line during these first 6 months (10,000
laptops). I think it's time you visit your banks again.
>
> > They've
> >already proven the point to everyone except those in COLA.
> >
>
> No, they have not. Just read the specialized press (Not WindowsMag, or
> EasyComputing please) and you will find that many specialists don't
> trust NT as a wide enterprise server. It can work as a server for small
> businesses or for big businesses but serving a limited amount of services
> (your e-mail server, yes, its is good enough for that).
Actually - it's the other way around. NT is trusted in big companies where
money matters. You'll find apache and bsd in small ISPs where two things
matter #1) low price and #2) bulk produced/mass packaged and managed virtual
hosts.
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list (and comp.os.linux.advocacy) via:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Advocacy Digest
******************************
